Prefontaine

Considering your nation is 2730 days old and only has 26 cities, I'm not sure you could win, even with paying. Order delivered.

First, no. I will not at this time. Second, second sentence. Hopeful date is by the end of February. The score change may get pushed back till the end of the war.

I hope everyone is well post new year. I'd like to announce changes coming to the game, with a targeted release date of the end of February, 2022. Content largely comes from previous threads like this one. Lets get into it. Expanded Rolls for Alliance Leadership This will allow alliances to have several different ranks and more customization with permission sets for leadership in their alliance. The testing is just about finished on this, if you want more information I believe it's still live on the test server. Treasure Trading Treasures will now be tradable through a direct trade offer. Some stipulations include: Nations being unable to trade for a treasure if they already have one. Treasures cannot be traded while an active war is in place Some notifications to prevent exploiting new players that get a treasure will also be included. City impact on score is being reduced from 100 -> 75 for any city beyond the first. Credit redemption caps are being increased from 10 -> 20 per month Three new Projects are being released and their info is as follows: Government Support Agency Improves Domestic Policy Effect by 50% (5% -> 7.5%) (1% -> 1.5% for open markets) Costs $20,000,000 - 200,000 Food - 10,000 Aluminun Research and Development Center This project provides two project slots (net: one additional project slot) Costs $50,000,000 - 100,000 Food - 5,000 Aluminum - 1,000 Uranium Resource Production Center Every Turn the nation gets 1 raw resource for each raw resource they can mine besides food (based on a chart found Here) This bonus increases for every 2 cities they have up to 10. This Project no longer functions above 15 cities. Costs $500,000 - 1,000 Food Some notes about the last one one, how the breakdown works: 1-2 Cities : 1 Raw Resource(s) Per Type 3-4 Cities : 2 Raw Resource(s) Per Type 5-6 Cities : 3 Raw Resource(s) Per Type 7-8 Cities : 4 Raw Resource(s) Per Type 9-10 Cities : 5 Raw Resource(s) Per Type (maxes at 180 raw resources per day) This project should not be able to be purchased by anyone with 16 or more cities If a player has this project and buys their 16th city they should receive a notification stating “Your Resource Production Center Project has stopped functioning. It is recommended you destroy the project and replace it with a more useful one.”

It can be tough taking over and filling shoes like Partisan left. When I took over TEst from people who had been fixtures since the beginning I told them I was going to honor the past, but do things my way. You have to make it your own, at least then if you fail its on your own terms. I'm sorry you had the negative experience with leadership that you did.

Who are these competent leaders you speak of?

This games history breaks down into a 5 eras, currently. The introduction, where pieces were falling into place in the first year or so. The Bipolar era where Syndisphere and The Covenant battled it out until Syndisphere beat them and then destroyed paperless. After that was the EMC era which ended with Knightfall. Following was the NPO era which ended with their epic downfall. We're now in a multisphere era. Syndicate was at its peak during the second and third eras. They became the dominant sphere in the bipolar era and were a part of the demise of the remainder of EMC in Knightfall. This is when they lost Partisan. Partisan wasn't the only piece of the puzzle, they also no longer had Manthrax, Roy Mustang, Jessica Rabbit. These were the fixtures of when Syndicate was at its best in the game. I don't say that to knock their current leadership, or leaders they had since then. To tie into Horsecocks original points, the rhetoric around Syndicate these days always feels like "Hey, we're great, we've always been great" and then the mindset becomes we'll always be great but it no longer feels earned. It feels like Syndicate is resting on its old accomplishments and the mindset of always needing to win is creeping in. Syndicate has an impressive win to loss record here, but it feels like winning has become too crucial to its existence. The "Git Gud" retorts of days gone by fall a little flat when you lose a couple wars, haven't done much in terms of taking a chance, or make an epic move. It feels like Syndicate is afraid to take a chance. I may be wrong, but it's the vibe I'm catching. We can take TKR for an example. TKR grew to prominence at the end of the Bipolar era and heavily in the EMC era. It's why the end of the era was called Knightfall. Honestly, at the time TKR grew it was on the coattails of Syndicate. They talked about never losing, how good they were, the same sort of swagger Syndicate had over the years. They took a hard loss though, and haven't had it easy since. Before the ego of winning became too much of a fixture in their alliance culture they got gut-checked. I'll largely credit Adrienne for being the leader they needed then, it's not a easy thing to keep morale up, but I'd argue TKR is stronger now because of it. Syndicate can do the same thing. Syndicates solution to these sort of problems in the past is at odds with the new world though. You can argue whos fault it is during the Bipolar era, one side built up treaties, so the other responded in kind. But Syndicate often amassed treaties to be able to have more strength. This kinda shows today with working with another sphere to 2v1 a sphere. You can argue that it's good tactics to dogpile, spares risk and limits damages but it's not anything to write home about. If your wins are coming from dogpiles in every tier besides 40+, then who cares? I'm actually somewhat talking to Partisan while I write this. He's someone I've worked precariously along side of many times, over way too long of a time. Alliances sometimes have difficulty replacing leaders of the magnitude of Partisan. In Syndicates case they had to replace him and his supporting cast. Alliances need to adapt to their leaders; how Syndicate operated under Partisan shouldn't be how it operates today because its leaders aren't Partisan. Again, not knocking the leaders of Syndicate. But if feels like your playing an act of how you think Syndicate should be based on how they were in the past versus making it something of your own. Damn the history, forge a new one. TEst has been recreated, or morphed several times in this game. It was very different when Jodo Lead, when ElPinchazo lead, when I lead, when Insert Name Here lead, so on and so forth. You try to keep some of the core ideals, but don't let what the alliance used to be dictate what it should be today. The past isn't what needs to be replicated, but the foundation for building new structures. I wanted to take a moment to thank Horsecock for making this thread. Whether you agree with him or not, these are the types of threads missing from the game these days. Side note, I didn't proof read, sorry for any typos or errors of that nature.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=90038

Declare on me and I'll give you 50M post war ❤️ ...Wait, is that against a rule?

You know.. I have an old video about Partisan and Roq sneaking out behind TKR's back related to this..

Thank you everyone for the feedback. Discussing with Alex we will be implementing changes to the score formula only, reducing city impact on score from 100 -> 75. No caps on down declares will be implemented. We will be keeping an eye on extreme down declares in the coming months. In the event feelings switch to this change causing for too big of down declares we will revisit the conversation about city score and possible caps then. I believe the poll is set to close on Thursday, but I'm going with the information at this time. 63% in favor to change score, 71% against caps on down declares. EDIT: This change will be implemented after the current sphere war.

I disagree. Regardless of where I stopped the numbers, the people against the concept would vote for the highest number for the starting point to diminish the effect the most. I could have been disingenuous and listed it as "11+" or something, and everyone who wanted higher numbers would vote that and then I could simply use 12, and technically adhere to the most popular choice.

Yes, there were complaints in a previous poll that people who voted "no" for a change and didn't vote on what the change may look like if it happened didn't get a say. That's why IF the change happens, everyone should give their input on what they think it should look like.

It's been regularly asked for by some people. It's the reason for this thread, to see how the people who didn't care about the increase from 50 -> 100 years ago feel about reducing that change some.

THIS CHANGE DOES NOT REMOVE THE SCORE DECLARATION RANGES. IT ONLY ADDS A FLOOR THAT A NATION CANNOT SWING BELOW REGARDLESS OF SCORE. Alex has agree to adjust City Count's impact on Score. Currently any city beyond the first contributes to 100 points of score. This will be reduced to 75 points. City score contribution was increased to help create less down declare huge gaps. To continue this while lowering City Count's impact on score a hard bottom on down declares will be implemented. That down declare cap will be calculated as follows: [ (City Count / 2) +1 ] Rounded up. Please use the poll to convey your thoughts on this change This cannot take effect immediate as a C1 wouldn't be able to declare on a C1, and neither would a C2 be able to declare on a C1. The second poll question takes into account when this rule would come into play. Examples of how the rule would work: C4 Capped at C3 C5 Capped at C4 C6 Capped at C4 C7 Capped at C5 C8 Capped at C5 C9 Capped at C6 C10 Capped at C6 C11 Capped at C7 C12 Capped at C7 C13 Capped at C8 C14 Capped at C8 C15 Capped at C9 C16 Capped at C9 C17 Capped at C10 C18 Capped at C10 C19 Capped at C11 C20 Capped at C11 Etc...

Depicting TEst as a Space Marine? If @Jodo was around to see this day…

That moment when a 24 hour clause is not quick enough.

When you cancel treaties to not get hit, but still get hit.

Clearly you just need to buy more credits.

New nations start with a project slot, to answer the quote in your post. I can't see those posts.

Again, not everyone plays the game in this manner. If you're not raiding this project gives the most benefit at the early stages.

Can I get some upvotes/downvotes on this post for feedback please? Upvote if you think it should turn off at City Count 15. Downvote if you think it should always be active. "Haha" If you don't care.

You're operating under the pretext that the only way of playing at that city count is raiding. If a player chooses to not raid, this project could be very profitable for them.

Correct, unless they're in Antarctica it will always be whichever 3 resources they would be able to mine without needing the mine.

What project is better for someone with 3-5 cities?